Re: commit_delay, siblings
От | Qingqing Zhou |
---|---|
Тема | Re: commit_delay, siblings |
Дата | |
Msg-id | d9d62c$2v67$1@news.hub.org обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | commit_delay, siblings (Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: commit_delay, siblings
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
"Josh Berkus" <josh@agliodbs.com> writes > Hackers: > > I've been trying to get a test result for 8.1 that shows that we can eliminate > commit_delay and commit_siblings, as I believe that these settings no longer > have any real effect on performance. However, the checkpointing performance > issues have so far prevented me from getting a good test result for this. > In my understadning, the commit_delay/commit_siblings combination simulate the background xlog writer mechanisms in some database like Oracle. This might be separate issue. We have code in xlogflush() like: /* done already? */if (!XLByteLE(record, LogwrtResult.Flush)){ /* now wait for the write lock */ LWLockAcquire(WALWriteLock,LW_EXCLUSIVE); if (XLByteLE(record, LogwrtResult.Flush)) LWLockRelease(WALWriteLock); /*if done already, then release the lock */ else /* do it */ If the testing results turns out the "LWLockRelease(WALWriteLock)" actually happened often, then it indicates that we waste some time on acquiring WALWriteLock. Would commit_delay/commit_siblings helps or we need a background xlog writer and notify us the completion of xlogflush is better (so we don't compete for this lock)? Regards, Qingqing
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: